Uh oh... you posted something that seems to be in favor of voter ID requirements. Around here that makes you slightly to the right of Hitler, and that automatically invalidates all arguments.

"Under cross examination, Rodriguez admitted that she has a birth certificate, a voter registration card, and a Social Security Card, and only two of those three forms of i.d. are required to obtain a free voter i.d. card offered by the DPS. Rodriguez testified that she 'doesn't have time' to go the DPS office to obtain the voter i.d. card, but she testified she had plenty of time to fly more than 1500 miles to Baltimore, catch a train to Washington DC, and sit for hours in a federal courtroom to testify about how unfair the Texas voter i.d. law is."

Rodriguez testified that she 'doesn't have time' to go the DPS office to obtain the voter i.d. card, but she testified she had plenty of time to fly more than 1500 miles to Baltimore, catch a train to Washington DC, and sit for hours in a federal courtroom to testify about how unfair the Texas voter i.d. law is.

The First Four Katy Perry Albums:Uh oh... you posted something that seems to be in favor of voter ID requirements. Around here that makes you slightly to the right of Hitler, and that automatically invalidates all arguments.

"Under cross examination, Rodriguez admitted that she has a birth certificate, a voter registration card, and a Social Security Card, and only two of those three forms of i.d. are required to obtain a free voter i.d. card offered by the DPS. Rodriguez testified that she 'doesn't have time' to go the DPS office to obtain the voter i.d. card, but she testified she had plenty of time to fly more than 1500 miles to Baltimore, catch a train to Washington DC, and sit for hours in a federal courtroom to testify about how unfair the Texas voter i.d. law is."

LOL.

Yeah. "Can't be bothered to do civic-duty stuff. Gotta go to a protest!"

Notice there's a subtle shift in context before Wiki is mentioned in the article:

Paragraph 1, talking about testimony by Kousser on the stand:Another Department of Justice 'expert' testified that the Legislature 'intended' to discriminate against minorities when it passed the Voter I.D. bill. But J. Morgan Kousser's comments under cross examination show he knows little to nothing about the Texas Legislature (he referred to State Sen. Leticia Van De Putte as the enate Minority Leader, a position that doesn't exist in the Texas Legislature) and lawyers for the state pointed out that he said the U.S. Supreme Court ruling which upheld a similar voter i.d. law in Indiana, a decision which was written by Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas, was written so the five, laughably, could 'promote white supremacy.'

Now, paragraph 2, talking about a book written by Kousser:Kousser also claimed in a book that Republicans are 'not legitimate representatives' of minority communities, and that any African American or Hispanic who supports voter i.d. 'has been manipulated and misled by Republicans.

Which means that paragraph 3, when they talk about Wiki, would seem to apply to the book, and not testimony on the stand:In fact, Kousser admitted that he got many of the 'facts' used to buttress these bizarre claims from 'Wikipedia,' an on line encyclopedia that anybody, including Kousser himself, can upload information onto.

It would be refreshing if there were at least one word of truth in that FA.

The US District Court has not yet ruled on this case (closing arguments were just presented this morning) and other news sources make no mention of the DOJ attorney flubbing his case. Texas sued the DOJ and they must prove that their law isn't discriminatory, not just that the DOJs numbers are wrong and that the sources of those numbers are unreliable.

Clearly a site that keeps referring to experts as 'experts' and facts as 'facts' wouldn't just be pushing an agenda.... no, I truly believe that this link takes me to an accurate and complete analysis of the trial and wouldn't be intentionally misrepresenting or concealing any part of it in a cynical attempt at deceptive persuasion.

Marcus Aurelius:Anyone defending poll taxes is anti-American and/or racist and/or a complete asshole. Unfortunately that include a ton of people in this country, which explains a lot.

I'm still on the fence on these laws (though I live in a state that requires me produce ID to vote), but it sounds like Texas is providing free IDs to anybody who can provide a birth certificate, voter registration card, or Social Security card. In order to register to vote, residents must provide either a Driver License number or Social Security number. So anybody who registers to vote should have either a photo ID or a Social Security card (which is free to obtain). So anybody who has registered to vote should also have the documentation needed to acquire a free voter ID.

bongmiester:Rodriguez testified that she 'doesn't have time' to go the DPS office to obtain the voter i.d. card, but she testified she had plenty of time to fly more than 1500 miles to Baltimore, catch a train to Washington DC, and sit for hours in a federal courtroom to testify about how unfair the Texas voter i.d. law is.

*facepalm*

in her defense, if getting a voter id requires a trip to the DMV, her argument is still valid.

JackieRabbit:It would be refreshing if there were at least one word of truth in that FA.

The US District Court has not yet ruled on this case (closing arguments were just presented this morning) and other news sources make no mention of the DOJ attorney flubbing his case. Texas sued the DOJ and they must prove that their law isn't discriminatory, not just that the DOJs numbers are wrong and that the sources of those numbers are unreliable.

Well, since the Supreme Court already upheld Indiana's VoterID law, it would seem that Texas will be on stronger ground, precedent wise than the DOJ is.

weiserfireman:JackieRabbit: It would be refreshing if there were at least one word of truth in that FA.

The US District Court has not yet ruled on this case (closing arguments were just presented this morning) and other news sources make no mention of the DOJ attorney flubbing his case. Texas sued the DOJ and they must prove that their law isn't discriminatory, not just that the DOJs numbers are wrong and that the sources of those numbers are unreliable.

Well, since the Supreme Court already upheld Indiana's VoterID law, it would seem that Texas will be on stronger ground, precedent wise than the DOJ is.

True, but the SCOTUS only ruled that the one state's law (Indiana's? trying to remember) was constitutional, not all of them and upheld the DoJ's authority to strike them down if they violate the Voting Rights Act. In other words, the Court let the process stand as is: the DoJ's decisions in such matters can be challenged in court.

It may well be that the district court will side with Texas. I know nothing about their ID law other than what I read, which seems reasonable. But Texas has a long history of discriminating against minorities. It's one of the worst state in the country in this regard. And they are arguing in front of the DC district court, which tends to be rather liberal in its rulings.

Voting requires me to go to the voting poll... this takes either gas to put in the car, or food in my belly so I can walk, and in essence, amounts to a poll tax. They should just call me and ask for my vote... which requires me to own a phone and there a phone poll tax. *sigh* I just can't win.

Kazan:give me doughnuts: Answer the question: How is a free ID a "tax"?

because it isn't actually free

Kazan: "we created a free ID, but we closed your only place to get it within a 3 hours drive"

"... so you have to take a day off work [which you cannot afford] and drive 6 hours..."

So......you think reimbursement for your gas and lost wages should be inluded? God help you folks that lived in the same places before automobiles....and still managed to show up. Seriously, except for the most remote parts, who is a three hour drive from a DMV or county courthouse or recorders office?

Theaetetus:Notice there's a subtle shift in context before Wiki is mentioned in the article:

Nice try, Subs.

to be fair, the 'expert' is testifying as an expert (someone with specialized knowledge of a particular field such that his/her knowledge is beyond that of the average person)...his book is going to be a part of his knowledge base with establishes him as an expert... proving his book is basically a load of crap, gathered from unsubstantiated data....well yeah, that sort of shoots a hole in his testimony and raises serious questions about his 'expert' status in the subject matter he is testifying about.

I am really tired of hearing about how racist the right is; seriously the racist tag is now an acceptable talking point on anything the right tries to do. STOP ACTING LIKE A VICTIM.

What is wrong with being required to establish you are who you say you are with respect to being able to vote?

aspAddict:It's so cute how people think that the voting process is ACTUALLY still being used as a way to elect leaders, instead of having them "pre-ordained" to be the next in line.

Yes, we've long since done away with such tawdry institutions as the Electoral Colleges. Elector Counts with their American Runeswords, forged by British Dwarfs and further ensorcelled by French Elfs rule with benign cruelty from their fastnesses across the nation, their court jesters reciting Thomas Paine for their ongoing entertainment. Yet, deep within the icy wastes of Canada, the minions of Chaos - 'Mounties', savage warriors astride equally savage Moose; Quebecois, a dark and secretive society of sorcerous socialists; and the brutal and vicious Seal Tribes of Greenland, known for their striking visual performance art and tea cakes - and many more, lurk at the borders, awaiting the day they find themselves united by a great War Leader, to strike deep into the heartland and plunder Snacky Cakes and Meth from the unwitting heartland inhabitants that languish in the false security of a superstitious process long since bereft of any true power.

Sure, maybe he knows the thing over his head that keeps the sun and rain off is a Roof, that sandpaper is Rough, and that the greatest slugger of all time was Ruth, but that doesn't mean he's worthy of suffrage.

Seems like fail all around.Texas waste time and money creating a law that the majority of people abide by anyway.Federal Gov. waste time and money to check it out, then waste more time to have SCOTUS say looks good.

Anyone claiming positive identification is the same as a poll tax is being pretty reactionary.

Ok, not a poll tax, how about just outright voter suppression? What if say a state passed a voter ID law, closed DMVs in areas with the highest amount of people who would need to get an ID and also instruct DMV workers not to inform citizens that the ID to vote is free...

Deucednuisance:weiserfireman: Well, since the Supreme Court already upheld Indiana's VoterID law, it would seem that Texas will be on stronger ground, precedent wise than the DOJ is.

Your argument is predicated on the notion that the current SCOTUS gives any deference to precedent.

And since it doesn't, your argument is pretty flimsy.

And, as was eloquently stated, supra

alowishus: Especially since the problem that voter I.Ds are supposed to fix doesn't even exist.

I am not worried about SCOTUS following precedent. They only follow it out of custom, to make things flow smoother. Their job is to make precedent. But the District and Circuit courts have to follow clear SCOTUS precedents

Anyone claiming positive identification is the same as a poll tax is being pretty reactionary.

Ok, not a poll tax, how about just outright voter suppression? What if say a state passed a voter ID law, closed DMVs in areas with the highest amount of people who would need to get an ID and also instruct DMV workers not to inform citizens that the ID to vote is free...